Canon EF 100mm f2 or f2.8 Macro?

B

bozwellox

Suspended / Banned
Messages
171
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning!

I'm looking at getting a longer prime for outdoor shots, and in particular for a friend's wedding which I will be shooting in a couple of months.

I'm tied between either of the Canon 100mm lenses, either the f2 or the f2.8 macro.

Most of my shots with this lens will likely be taken outdoors, so I don't necessarily need the f2, but it might be useful to throw the background out of focus a tad more than with the f2.8.

On the other hand, whilst the macro ability would be nice from time to time, it's not something I spend a great deal of time on - portraits are my main shots really.

So, if anyone has any real world experience of using either (or both) of these lenses - which one would you go for?

I already have a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I'm just waiting for my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 to arrive, so I have other fast lenses available to me. I just really want a fast, longer prime for portraits.

Any recommendations between those two? :thinking:
 
two very different (!) lenses - one for macro and headshots and the other for all kind of portraits and sports... Macro is optimised, well, for macro and has very little precision between 1m and infinity (so 3-5m setting is probably the least precise). This is quite obvious when you look at the focusing window. I can see plenty of uses for wedding though (in addition to 70-200)
 
I have not used the f/2 so can't make a comparison, but the macro is a nice lens. Sharp, light weight and has the capability of shooting macro, obviously. Not sure there would be a massive difference in bokeh, given how close the max aperture on both are, but if you are likely to be doing any indoor shooting, that might push you toward the f/2

ETA: I've never had a problem with focussing issues with the f/2.8
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
two very different (!) lenses - one for macro and headshots and the other for all kind of portraits and sports... Macro is optimised, well, for macro and has very little precision between 1m and infinity (so 3-5m setting is probably the least precise). This is quite obvious when you look at the focusing window. I can see plenty of uses for wedding though (in addition to 70-200)
Click to expand...

OK, so the macro is basically a duffer as a general purpose portrait lens then? In that case I'll save a few quid and go for the f2. Cheers!
 
I've got the 2.8 L macro and have no problems with focussing from up close to infinity. I've used mine for portraits lots of times and even used it as a general telephoto lens when a helicopter flew over the house. I went from macro to air and back to macro at the flick of a switch and got some great shots of all the flying objects.
 
The new 100mm 2.8L IS would be my first choice. A cracking lens whatever the situation.
 
bozwellox said:
OK, so the macro is basically a duffer as a general purpose portrait lens then? In that case I'll save a few quid and go for the f2. Cheers!
Click to expand...
No, definitely not. It worked fine for me. Sometimes you have to temper daugirdas' posts with a view of the real world ;)
 
Thanks. I've ordered the f2 anyway as I decided I valued the faster lens over the macro ability. From reading reviews of it I'm pretty sure I'll love it. Thanks all!
 
arad85 said:
No, definitely not. It worked fine for me. Sometimes you have to temper daugirdas' posts with a view of the real world ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's duffer! I just merely commented that f/2 is more suited to portraiture, particularly shooting wide open. I don't have f/2 but I own 85mm f/1.8 which is near enough the same. That is the sharpest lens in my bag, and the cheapest :lol:
 
I'd probably have gone withe 85 1.8 or 135 f/2 for your situation but the 100 f/2 is a good middle ground :)
 
I considered the 85mm but it's not that far away from my 50mm 1.4, so the extra reach and compression of the 100mm swung it. The 135mm would be nice but too expensive and bulky for me.
 
the 100 f2 has shocking purple fringing wide open - sharp lens at f2 and faster focusing than the f2.8 macro though. Personally I'd not have either unless I was doing macro.
 
POAH said:
the 100 f2 has shocking purple fringing wide open - sharp lens at f2 and faster focusing than the f2.8 macro though. Personally I'd not have either unless I was doing macro.
Click to expand...

Hopefully lightroom can fix the fringing? Not many other options for the money and I've seen some lovely shots taken with it so I bit the bullet!
 
I've recently bought the 100L 2.8 and have had some decent results. Sadly my composition was shocking so I've binned the shots, so I'm not really the best to comment. The macro side of it is ace though. I'd recommend it :)
 
bozwellox said:
I considered the 85mm but it's not that far away from my 50mm 1.4, so the extra reach and compression of the 100mm swung it. The 135mm would be nice but too expensive and bulky for me.
Click to expand...

85mm is quite far away from 50mm actually, very different lenses, but I agree the 100 makes more sense

POAH said:
the 100 f2 has shocking purple fringing wide open - sharp lens at f2 and faster focusing than the f2.8 macro though. Personally I'd not have either unless I was doing macro.
Click to expand...

and 85mm f/1.2L is even far worse for fringing. It does require some blown highlights to show up at its worst.
 
With regards to the 85mm, as mentioned above, the difference is actually quite large, especially if shooting in small areas. I recently went to a mates gig and was using my 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm, and REALLY needed an 85mm that night :(
 
Bluesmachine said:
With regards to the 85mm, as mentioned above, the difference is actually quite large, especially if shooting in small areas. I recently went to a mates gig and was using my 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm, and REALLY needed an 85mm that night :(
Click to expand...

Hmmm...now you've got me thinking. Another plus for the 85mm is that it should be quite a useful length on my 40D as well as my 5D. I'm in a quandary now.
 
Yeah, I was using a 60D. Forgot to mention that. Currently I can find arguments for me buying 3 different lenses, which is annoying :D 16-35 and I need an 85mm, so I will probably pick up the highly thought of 85 1.8 for now and see how I go.

My mate is having another gig in the same tiny place, so I'm thinking of getting the 16-35 but as I'm doing it on credit, I might chuck in the 85mm too :D
 
What focal length would I need to use on my cheapo zoom on my 40D to accurately show what field of view I'd get with an 85mm and a 100mm on full frame? My 5D is with Sigma at the moment having my 50mm calibrated to it, and I want to check how usable each lens would be, but as I only have the 40D I need to take the crop factor into account.

Is the 85mm about 50mm on a crop body and 100mm about 60mm?

Forgive my stupidity, got an E in GCSE maths...
 
50 * 1.6 crop gives you 80mm
85 * 1.6 crop gives you 136mm

If you want to be expensive you could go 16-35 (or 24-70), 50mm and 70-200. The 24-105 f4 is supposedly good on 5D cameras. Also the 17-40 gets good mentions somewhere on these boards that I was reading today in work.
 
Well I've got a 28-75 f2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 already so that side of things is sorted. Just want something a bit longer for portraits, but nothing too bulky (which rules the 70-200 out, as lovely as they are). I'm lacking an ultra wide zoom but that is lower down on my list for now.
 
Well I can say the 100mm is a nice weight, but to be honest some of the things I consider a good weight for me, others say are heavy. I've no idea about the weight of the 85mm, but I can't imagine the 1.8 would be heavy. The 1.2 is £1300, and as lovely as it is, I'm not spending that on a lens just yet when I've got other things to buy, but obviously that would be a heavier lens. Both are stubby things really, so ace for slipping in a bag for gigs, etc.
 
I don't mind a bit of weight, it's just the size of the 70-200 that puts me off, can't imagine taking it out and about for general shooting. Plus I just love primes! The 100mm (or the 85mm) should slip into my bag easily without adding too much heft.

Thanks for the input mate, always good to hear other people's opinions!
 
Used to own a 100mm f2 and really liked it.
I eventually upgraded to the 135L, which is better, but mainly due the longer focal length, rather than quality wise.

My 100/2 was sharp wide open but did have PF - which could be an issue in some situations.

I would get another 100/2 anyday though - and now I've got a 5Dmk3 which can correct the PF in camera I am really thinking about buying another.

Couple of shots with my old 100/f2


Holly by futureal33, on Flickr


Holly by futureal33, on Flickr


Nigel by futureal33, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
bozwellox said:
So what would you suggest then?
Click to expand...

Get the 100 if you want that focal length and speed. Just because mine was bad does not mean yours will. I used it on a 40d and different sensors give different results
 
I have a new 100mm f2.0 for sale in the classifieds.

Well it's taken about 30 or so shots. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top